European Structural Funds
Agenda item 2 is consideration of a paper on research on European structural funds. This is Christine May's baby, so I ask her to introduce the paper.
I am pleased to introduce the paper, which comes to us following a discussion that we had at a previous meeting. I thank Stephen Herbert and the team at the Scottish Parliament information centre for liaising with me on amendments to the paper.
The sentence that captures what I am trying to do is in section 2:
"The research will also look at the capacity of the programmes and projects to lever in additional funds and investments."
To my mind, that is not covered in the end-of-term assessments of the individual strands of individual programmes. As I have said to the committee before, when European funding is obtained for a regeneration initiative, funds are often brought in from a number of European strands which, in turn, attract funding from Government or private sector sources. What I am trying to capture—and what I think the committee will want to capture from the enterprise perspective—is the funds' ability to create a lasting framework for economic development and the extent to which they have done that.
I hope that the committee agrees that the research will be worth our while and will not replicate work that has been done by other committees or in project evaluations to date.
I do not underestimate the importance of the issue and I acknowledge the level of public expenditure that is involved. Given that we are talking about £2.5 billion of public money, my point might seem insignificant, but I want to know and understand a bit more about what we will commit ourselves to if we go ahead with the research. I am thinking both about the costs—although I realise that there are issues about the tendering process—and about the outcome of the work relative to the time, effort and direct costs that would be involved, not least given that Parliament is nearing the end of a session. I would be grateful for some clarification on those matters.
As I said, I realise that in the scheme of things we are talking about a substantial amount of public money, but it is none the less important—before we commission external reports, or reports from our clerks or SPICe—that we consider whether the exercise will bear fruit and, therefore, will represent value for money.
I will hear other members' comments and ask Christine May to sum up at the end. I ask Stephen Herbert to join us at the table so that he can answer factual questions if Christine needs assistance with them.
Given the area that I come from, and notwithstanding the difficulties in which we are engaged at the moment, I would welcome the research. There has been an element of confusion and, perhaps, opaqueness about the issue over the years. That is nobody's fault, but it would be good to get the facts out.
I am keen to make two points. The first will come as no surprise to the committee because I have raised it before: it is on the importance of drawing boundaries. I remind members that, in Wales, funding is directed according to the intelligent drawing of lines on maps. In the Highlands we have the Inverness effect. Inverness is buoyant, to say the least, and its growth is, if anything, accelerating and the graph getting even steeper. Other parts of the Highlands—not only in my constituency but in the constituencies of members of all political colours—are feeling the Inverness effect.
The second point is a slightly newer one. I have been examining funding—I will meet officials in a week or two—with a view to anticipating what will happen in the future. The radar is switched on. To be absolutely parochial, I am thinking of the post-Dounreay scenario, which we heard about in Thurso and which is of major concern to all politicians. We have heard that decommissioning is accelerating and that the problem is coming at us quicker than we had thought it would, so to what extent can one anticipate problems in respect of funding and know what will come on to the radar soon? I am sure that the best of intentions are held, but I need that to be demonstrated for my peace of mind.
No other members have questions; I would bring in Stephen Herbert, but he is indicating that he does not want to add to or answer any questions.
Susan Deacon raised a valid point about the amount of work, which I have discussed with SPICe. Post-session evaluations have been done on all the more recent structural fund elements—on individual funds and individual strands. It is all out there. The proposal is that we examine those evaluations across a range of projects. We will use programme management executives, which are the local managers of funds, and their intelligence. The intention is not that vast quantities of new research be done, but that existing research findings be collated and exemplars used, rather than examples of every project in every programme.
I do not expect the proposal to cost a huge amount of money, but when the tenders are submitted, the committee will have the opportunity to consider costs and will have a better idea of whether the cost can be put up with.
Jamie Stone raised two points. The research will not give us any steers for the next round of funding; work on that has already been done and it is far too late for us to exert any influence in respect of boundaries. However, the research might show whether the lines on maps have been detrimental or advantageous to some areas, although I suspect that most of us know the answer to that.
For the future radar, when we consider the development of regeneration policy, economic development and economic investment, the research might suggest what types of collaborative programme work best and have the most lasting effects. However, I am speculating—I am not sure that that will be in the research.
Before an invitation to tender can be made, the proposal will go to the Conveners Group for consideration along with other committees' bids against the research budget. The Conveners Group is highly aware of the need for value for money and for operating within the overall research budget for committees. As a member of that group, I will ensure that the committee's concerns that we obtain value for money and that cost is not excessive are taken into account.
With those provisos, are members happy to proceed with the proposal?
Members indicated agreement.
We have unanimous agreement. I suspend the meeting to give the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport time to arrive and sit down for agenda item 3.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—